ID: nht75-4.14

DATE: 05/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Richard B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gurley Refining Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: In your letter of April 10, 1975, you ask whether a label you enclosed meets the requirements of Motor Vehicles Safety Standard No. 116.

The color coding requirements published on August 22, 1974, have been suspended for the present. The phrase "conforms or exceeds FMVSS 116" meets the requirements "certification that the brake fluid conforms to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116," although it is ungrammatical and the reference to "exceeding" is redundant.

Your label therefore meets our requirements.

YOURS TRULY,

April 10, 1975

(Illegible Word) Legal Council National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Sir:

Enclosed you will find a black and white laycut of the label we use to package brake fluid. We wish an official ruling from your department as to whether or not our label does conform to all the requirements of FMVSS 116 as amended in Federal Register, Volumn 39, Number 164 - Thursday, August 22, 1974. Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.

Very truly yours, JIM BENNETT -- GURLEY REFINING CO.

Enclosure

CRG

SUPER HEAVY DUTY

BRAKE FLUID DOT 3 MOTOR VEHICLE BRAKE FLUID 284 degrees F Min. Wet Boiling Point

NET 12 FLUID OZS. CONFORMS OR EXCEEDS FMVSS 116

GRC HYDRAULIC BRAKE FLUID

(Illegible Text)

GURLEY REFINING CO. MEMPHIS, TENN. 30102

CUST. GURLEY REFINING DESIGN (Illegible Words)

ENG. 2700-1

S.O. 244-3191

SIZE 211X467.5

C.E. 459X8364

B.P.

DATE 10-19-71

NO. PROOFS PROOF DATE CHANGE A 1-11-72 CHANGE B CHANGE C

ID: nht75-4.15

DATE: 03/14/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Gurley Refining Co.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

ID: nht75-4.16

DATE: 11/10/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Mountain States Tires Dealers Association

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: Please forgive the delay in responding to your letter of May 1, 1975, which included a list of information items you believe are required to appear on retreaded tires pursuant to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires.

With the following qualifications, your list is correct:

1. The tire must be labeled with the symbol "DOT" followed by the letter "R", and other information required by 49 CFR Part 574.5, Tire Identification and Recordkeeping, as a certification that the tire complies with Standard No. 117. This requirement is distinct from and in addition to the requirement that the casing retain the "DOT" symbol from its original manufacture.

2. The words "bias/belted" are not required, because the actual number of plies in the sidewall and, if different, in the tread area, are now required to appear.

3. Tube-type and tubeless tires must be labeled with the specific words "tube-type" and "tubeless", respectively.

4. The items listed in your third group may appear on a paper label only if that label is not easily removable.

For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Standard No. 117.

YOURS TRULY,

MOUNTAIN STATES TIRE DEALERS ASSOCIATION

May 1, 1975

U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

From various sources, it is our understanding that after May 12, 1975, the following requirements must be met in retreading passenger car tires:

To be processed the casing must have on it from the original manufacturer

The symbol "DOT"

The tire size

Number of plies or ply rating

The completed retread must be permanently marked in at least one location with letters of a minimum of .078 inches high with the following:

Maximum Load

Actual number of plies in sidewall and tread, if different

Name of cord in sidewall and in tread area if different

The completed retread must also have this information on it, either with a permanent label, paper label or retained on the casing:

Size

Tube or Tubeless

Mamimum Inflation

Bias belted or Radial

Please advise us as soon as possible if the above information is correct so that we may have current, proper and accurate information for our members.

Claud Riggs, Exec. Secy.

ID: nht75-4.17

DATE: 09/11/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Flenniken Financial Services, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 1, 1975, concerning the legal duties of a tire recapping firm which you insure.

For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 117, Retreaded Pneumatic Tires. This standard does not specify the testing which a manufacturer of retreaded tires must do; it does specify the criteria which the tires must meet when tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for compliance. While the surest way for the retreader to be confident of compliance would be to follow the procedures in every detail, he is not legally obligated to do so. Section 108 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as amended, requires him to assure himself that, when tested by the NHTSA according to the procedures set out in the standard, his tires will meet the specified criteria. In addition, he is required to repair or replace without charge a non-complying tire.

SINCERELY,

July 1, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration James B. Gregory Administrator

Re: Title 40 CFR 571-171A and Current Amendments

We insure a tire recapping firm here in Knoxville, Tennessee. We are providing products coverage, and the company writing this coverage has set out some essential recommendations to be complied with in order to continue same. I an enclosing the recommendations and request that you advise me as soon as possible just what these people need to do to be in compliance with these.

Thank you for your cooperation and prompt reply.

FLENNIKEN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

Frank C. Howard, Jr.

8-5-75

I would appreciate a reply on this I can't do any think until I hear from you

Thank you Frank C. Howard, Jr

ID: nht75-4.18

DATE: 10/23/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; F. Berndt; NHTSA

TO: Coach and Equipment Sales Corp.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1975, to Mr. Schwartz of this office, seeking an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205.

FMVSS No. 205 requires that the prime glazing manufacturer certify each piece of glazing covered by the standard by marking it with the letters DOT, the manufacturers code mark assigned by the Department of Transportation and the markings required by section 6 of A.N.S.Z-26. The latter markings are the "AS" number, the model number and the manufacturer's distinctive designation or trademark. The distributor who cuts a section of glazing material to which the standard applies is required to mark the material in accordance with section 6 of A.N.S.Z-26. Thus, each of the rectangular lites should be marked with the manufacturer's model number and trademark in addition to the AS number, but not with the letters DOT or the prime glazing manufacturer's DOT number.

Section 114 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 requires that you, as the vehicle manufacturer, certify that your product conforms to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. This would, of course, include FMVSS No. 205.

I hope I have fully answered your questions. If you have any further need for information please do not hesitate to write.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

COACH AND EQUIPMENT SALES CORPORATION

July 30, 1975

Fred Schwartz -- Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Dear Mr. Schwartz:

To further clarify the questions asked on the telephone and also that I may have the answers/opinions in writing, I am addressing this correspondence to you.

Our questions perhaps boil down to only two. Regarding interpretation of FMVSS 205, in particular the identification markings on glazing material.

As explained to you on the phone our company makes a small vehicle for school bus use primarily by converting a van vehicle to conform to Federal and State standards for use in transporting school pupils. (Brochure enclosed) Thus, our first question. Are we required to have the glazing material, namely laminated glass, we install to be marked with the "DOT" symbol, a manufacturer's code mark, and the "M" number?

Our second question is of course heavily dependent on the answer/ opinion to the first question. To clarify our second question it is necessary to point out that our volume of production is not large, and we have found over the years that we have been serviced better by the distributor's of glazing material rather than the prime manufacturer. In which case, the distributor orders from his manufacturer glazing material to be cut to size and shape from a common sheet size. (Ex: Six (6) rectangular lites - 10 1/2" x 23 3/8" from a large 48" x 62" sheet) It should be noted that the 48" x 62" sheet is marked in only one place. To satisfy various State standards, we require a marking on each lite showing the "AS" number.

Because of the correspondence between your office and Commander Heath of California, we are now finding the prime manufacturer with-holding the right of the distributor to mark with the trademark the individual lites the distributor has cut. In our interpretation of 56.4 of FMVSS 205, the distributor can mark the individual lites. Are we correct in this interpretation? Phrasing the question another way for maximum clarification to us would be as follows. Can the prime manufacturer with-hold the ability of the distributor to mark the individual lites?

We assure you that the answer/opinion to these questions are important and critical to us and respectfully request a reply as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Richard L. Kreutaiger -- Vice President

ID: nht75-4.19

DATE: 04/21/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Novus, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of March 12, 1975, inquiring as to whether any safety regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration applies to the "Novus Windshield Repair Kit," manufactured by your firm.

An advertising brochure for the product states that the material used in the process "is a special waterproof epoxy that not only fills the fissure in the glass but also bonds the crack surfaces to prevent formation or extension of radial cracks."

There is no safety regulation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nor any other Federal law or regulation, which prohibits the use of such a material or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use. Using such a material or process in a new windshield which may require repair as the result of damage sustained in shipment could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirement of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR 5 571.205) and we would therefore discourage use of the Novus kit on new windshields.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of further assistance.

ID: nht75-4.2

DATE: 05/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Trailmaster Tanks, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to Trailmaster Tank's May 14, 1975, request for a discussion of what constitutes the manufacture of a trailer in cases where used components from an existing vehicle are involved.

In response to a similar request from the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently prepared a comprehensive discussion of this subject, a copy of which is enclosed for your information.

Yours Truly,

Trailmaster Tanks, Inc.

May 14, 1975

Mr. James C. Schultz Chief Counsel NH 13A - DOT

We manufacture transport trailers and with the new weight law, that has been passed, we need some information on the subject of stretching out a trailer. These trailers have already been manufactured and are in use at this time. We need to know, if the way that we plan to stretch out the trailers, if that is within the laws.

If you can send us some information on this subject, we will be most appreciative.

PHIL MARTINEZ, ENGINEER

ID: nht75-4.20

DATE: 03/28/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: The Glass Doctor

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter dated January 29, 1975, asking whether a product which you use to repair damaged windshields is prohibited by Federal law or regulation. Your letter was forwarded to our office by the NHTSA Regional Administrator in Fort Worth. You describe the repair process which you use as one in which the air in a damage spot or crack in the windshield is displaced by the product in a liquid form. As this product hardens it bonds itself to the glass, making the damaged area stronger than the other areas of the glass.

There are no Federal laws or regulations which prohibit the use of such a material or process in the repair of windshields which have previously been installed in vehicles and damaged in use. Using such a material or process in a new (but damaged) windshield (such as in shipment) could cause the windshield to fail to meet the performance requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR @ 571.205) and we would therefore discourage its use in new windshields.

We are pleased to be of assistance.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

The Glass Doctor

JANUARY 29, 1975

Dept. of Transportation-NHTS Legal Dept., Fort Worth, Texas 76102

Gentlemen:

The Glass Doctor has a patented compound and patented process for repairing damaged glass on vehicular windshields. The compound is a lucite or plexiglass base product which must be kept dark and refrigerated prior to use. Once exposed to sunlight (ultra-violet) and heat, the hardening process commences. This process is irreversible, similar to cement.

Repairs to windshield damages are accomplished through a process by which the air in a damage spot or crack on the windshield is displaced by the product while same is still a low viscosity fluid. As the compound hardens, it bonds itself to the glass, making the damaged area actually stronger than the other areas of the glass. A good analogy is that of welding two pieces of metal together. The same principle applies to our glass repair compound and process. We are able to confine existing damage, restore the strength of the glass, and improve the cosmetics of the damage anywhere from 75% to 99%.

In the course of offering our repair service to many of the Motor Freight Trucking firms in the Dallas area, the question has been raised as to whether use of our repair process would be in conflict with existing D.O.T. regulations.

Would appreciate greatly any correspondance from your department which would ascertain that use of our process would in no way conflict with existing D.O.T. regulations.

Sincerely,

E. J. Banks

ID: nht75-4.21

DATE: 10/17/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; R. B. Dyson; NHTSA

TO: Tiffin Metal Products

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in response to your request for an opinion on the applicability of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205 to a road grader intended for use in highway construction.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issues safety standards for "motor vehicles." Therefore, our regulations apply to a vehicle and its manufacturer only if the vehicle qualifies as a motor vehicle under the provisions of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Section 102(3) of the Act defines motor vehicle as:

any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

Thus, a motor vehicle is a vehicle which the manufacturer expects will use public highways as part of its intended function.

Tracked and other vehicles incapable of highway travel are not motor vehicles. In addition, vehicles intended and sold solely for off-road use (e.g. aircraft runway vehicles and underground mining vehicles) are not considered vehicles even if operationally capable of highway travel. They would, however, be considered motor vehicles if the manufacturer knew that a substantial proportion of his customers actually would use them on the highway.

Just as clearly, vehicles which use the highway on a necessary and recurring basis to move between work sites are motor vehicles. The primary function of some vehicles is of a mobile, work performing nature and as such their manufacturer comtemplates a primary use of the highway. Mobile cranes, drill rigs, and towed equipment such as chippers and pull-type street sweepers are examples in this area. Even if the equipment uses highways infrequently, it is considered a motor vehicle. An exception to this is that occasional use of the highway in the immediate periphery of the work site, as is the case with some farm and construction equipment, would not by itself case a finding that the vehicle is a motor vehicle. The motor vehicles described above generally qualify as trucks or trailers. As such they are subject to several of the motor vehicle safety standards, and the manufacturer must comply with other regulations in Chapter V of Title 49, code of Federal Regulations.

There are some vehicles which are excepted from the motor vehicle classification despite their use of the highway. Highway maintenance and construction equipment, lane stripers, self-propelled asphalt pavers, and other vehicles whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour and whose abnormal configuration distinguishes them from the traffic flow are not considered motor vehicles. This would appear to include road graders whose maximum speed does not exceed 20 miles per hour, if intended for use in highway construction.

From these guidelines you should be able to determine whether a piece of equipment qualifies as a motor vehicle. Please write again if you are unable to make this determination.

Yours truly,

ATTACH.

Tiffin METAL PRODUCTS

August 11, 1975

National Highway Traffic Safety Commission Mr. Hunter

Dear Mr. Hunter:

Per our telephone conversation of August 11, 1975, please forward to me in writing the ruling stating that the Huber Cab for road construction does not have to meet STD 205.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Very truly yours,

Joe Steininger -- Inventory Control Manager

cc: W. Heddles; M. Smith

ID: nht75-4.22

DATE: 04/03/75

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; J. C. Schultz; NHTSA

TO: Ventline, Inc.

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This is in reply to your letter of February 27, 1975, regarding the use of rubber-modified polypropylene plastic in a roof ventilator which you manufacture. You enclose a sample of the material.

A plastic material used in the roof ventilator of a motor home must meet the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205 (49 CFR @ 571.205). Our conclusion is based on the fact that ANS Standard Z26.1-1966, which is incorporated into the Federal standard, includes ventilators and openings in the roof of motor vehicles as locations in which glazing materials meeting the requirements of the standard are directed to be used. Any of the materials specified in ANS Z26, and the plastic materials added to the standard (items 12 and 13) on November 11, 1972, may be used in a roof ventilator of a motor home. We would consider such a ventilator to be a "window" of the motor home.

The NHTSA has in the past amended Standard No. 205 to permit the use of new materials in vehicle locations following a manufacturer's petition for such an amendment. It appears from your letter that the use of polypropylene in roof ventilators would not create a safety hazard. However, in order for us to consider a change in the standard it will be necessary for you to provide us with information on the performance of this material. One way that manufacturers have provided us this information in the past is to have the material tested to the least restrictive requirements of the standard for any material which the standard permits to be used in the location desired.

I have enclosed a copy of NHTSA procedural rules (49 CFR Part 523) containing information on submitting a petition for rulemaking. Such a petition should contain the information I have referred to regarding the performance of polypropylene.

In your letter you ask for a code number should we determine that the material must conform to Standard No. 205. A code number, however, is issued only to a prime glazing material manufacturer, who is one who either fabricates, laminates, or tempers the glazing material. The request for such a code number must be made directly by the prime glazing material manufacturer.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

February 27, 1975

Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Ref: F.M.V.S.S. 205

Gentlemen:

Ventline, Inc. is a manufacturer of roof ventilators for motor homes and campers. We are trying to determine if F.M.V.S.S. #205 applies to our product. (literature enclosed.)

The purpose of this standard mentions, (1) injuries from impact with glazing surfaces, (2) ensurance of driver visibility in motor vehicle windows, (3) minimize possibility of occupants being thrown through windows in collisions.

(1 & 3) As far as injuries from impact go, the possibility of contact with the dome in a collision is very remote since the opening in the unit is only 12 inches square and that area is blocked by a heavy gage steel bar across the opening which makes it most difficult to come into direct contact with the plastic dome.

(2) The concern of transparency and driver visibility is completely unrelated to the intent of the vent. It is installed in the roof of the vehicle, not one of the adjacent sides to areas occupied by persons, and is used primarily for ventilation. It also allows a limited amount of light through the "TRANSLUCENT" not transparent dome. It's intent was not to provide visibility through the roof.

The material used in this dome is a rubber modified polypropylene plastic which has superior impact resistance. As you can see by the small sample I have enclosed, it also has a good degree of flexibility to resist breakage.

To the best of our knowledge, there isn't any glazing being done with polypropylene because of the difficulty of obtaining good transparency, so it doesn't seem to us that our dome should be considered glazing material and shouldn't have to comply with F.M.V.S.S. #205.

If in your opinion, after considering these points, you feel that we must comply with #205, please consider this our application for a manufacturers code mark.

We are eagerly awaiting your decision on this matter.

Sincerely,

VENTLINE, INC. -- Dave Bickel, Product Engineering

enclosure

cc: Harry Hunt; Ernie Baker